Owens, B. v. Lehigh Valley Hospital
3780 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- Brenda A. Owens worked as a sterilizing technician and went on medical leave beginning September 10, 2010.
- LVH sent Owens multiple letters (Jan. 21, Feb. 23, and two March 4 letters) stating LVH policy terminates employment after 180 days of leave and specifying the exact date she would be removed from payroll (March 9, 2011).
- Owens applied for long-term disability and disputed an incorrect leave start date in the January letter; she called a benefits counselor once and made unsuccessful attempts to contact the CEO in June/July 2011.
- Owens’ employment was terminated effective March 9, 2011; she filed suit for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy on July 8, 2013 (over two years later).
- Trial court granted LVH summary judgment as time-barred; Owens appealed arguing the discovery rule tolled the limitations period until she learned of her termination on July 13, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery rule tolled the 2-year limitations period for wrongful discharge | Owens: she did not actually know she was terminated and only learned on July 13, 2011, so limitations should start then | LVH: Owens received clear letters providing unequivocal notice of termination (date given); she had means to discover status earlier | Court: Discovery rule does not apply as a matter of law; Owens knew or should have known of termination by March 2011 and claim is time-barred |
| Whether letters were sufficient notice vs. requiring a specific termination letter | Owens: policy letters are general; absence of a final termination notice means she lacked unequivocal notice | LVH: letters were specific, named the termination date and removal from payroll | Court: Letters were specific and unequivocal; misunderstanding by Owens does not toll limitations |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled limitations | Owens: LVH never sent a final termination letter; conduct concealed termination | LVH: no concealment; letters informed Owens; no deceit | Court: Argument waived for failure to raise below; alternatively rejected on merits because no concealment |
| Applicability of Third Circuit standard (unequivocal notice) | Owens relied on Bailey requiring unequivocal notice to start limitations | LVH: Third Circuit decision not binding; LVH letters were nonetheless unequivocal | Court: Not bound by Bailey; letters provided unequivocal notice regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (accrual and discovery-rule principles govern when limitations begin to run)
- Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (discovery rule tolling requires inability to know injury despite reasonable diligence)
- Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 204 A.2d 473 (Pa. 1964) (mistake or lack of knowledge alone does not toll the statute)
- Crouse v. Cyclops Indus., 745 A.2d 606 (Pa. 2000) (limitations begins when plaintiff knew or should have known injury and its cause)
- Barnish v. KWI Bldg. Co., 980 A.2d 535 (Pa. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)